jump to navigation

The Green Party and Labour May 27, 2014

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.
trackback

I’ve been fascinated by the Green Party slight return. In part because what is happening to the Labour Party seems to be similar, but I’m not certain that it is. Few would disagree that the GP made egregious errors in government, and worse again, stayed in government. And they paid, and how, in 2011 for it.

Yet they didn’t do one crucial thing that the LP did, which was to promise one set of policies and then deliver their effective opposite. And I think that that is why the GP is slowly clawing back some limited space. There are other aspects to this. The GP is getting reasonably good transfers across the board but it is striking where it is doing well, mostly – though not in all cases – in constituencies where there wasn’t a strong PBP or other challenge.

And broadly speaking in constituencies which might be characterised as middle class, or where there might be a strong middle class presence. Rathgar-Rathmines, and Pembroke typify the latter, North-Inner City the former. Clontarf saw a reasonably strong challenge, but one that dissipated, but tellingly coming in ahead of PBP.

Clearly it was clever of Ryan to stand. It was in some ways a win win situation, building a credible vote, putting one of those from the last government front and centre and hoping that somehow the electorate would be more forgiving than might otherwise be expected. Oh, and pulling in candidates in his wake to council seats. In all those respects it would appear to have worked. The history of that last government is far from forgotten but it doesn’t appear to have the sting it once did. Though, before they start clapping themselves on the back a reality check.

The broader vote for Eamon Ryan suggests that a seat in the capital might be possible, but that raises the question as to what candidate – presumably Ryan, and what constituency? I’m hard pressed to think of one where he could stand with any assuredness of ultimate victory. And that’s the problem for them. As a national party they still seem a long way away from a sniff of GE victories.

But, all of that is irrelevant in the broad sweep of things – the GP remains a very very marginal force, still led by those whose finger prints were on basic elements of the crisis and after, and the interesting aspects of their progress have little to do with their ideology or political position. Interesting to see where they go next but an academic interest at this point in time and for quite some time to come – short of a wholesale reinvention which appears deeply unlikely.

And for Labour the grim thought, that yes, political parties do come back from the brink, but it can be a slow and partial process and that the GP’s situation may be so significantly different to that of the other party that comparisons are difficult to make.

No comfort there. Not even if they have tipped Gilmore over the side. Because it’s not just a problem with Gilmore. It’s a problem about abandoning the policies you had in the first place (no great shakes by the by). It’s a problem about abandoning your base. It is, in a sense, that they exemplify the manner in which social democracy, in large part, shifted rightwards, but with no thought as to how they would maintain support. I’ve found that baffling. None of this was unpredictable, nothing terribly surprising here. If you don’t maintain your base then you’ve got nothing. How could this happen?

John Downing suggested on RTЙ that a form of Stockholm syndrome, that their loyalty to being in government was too great. Perhaps, or perhaps they were a generation of politicians just too wedded to getting into government at pretty much any cost, too wedded to staying there, not wedded at all to questioning why they were, what they were seeking to achieve, what they wanted at the end of the process, and suggesting that ‘responsibility’ (very evident in a very shook Gilmore’s non-apologia) was enough was to completely misunderstand the nature of political activity.

But you know, the oddest thing is not that this has happened, but that perhaps it has taken so long to happen. After all the LP has lost a van full of TDs (and a Senator or two). It has lost councillors in droves. It has lost activists, supporters. It trashed its own policy platform of 2011 (and by the by, the idea that that year they arrived in government, saw the books and swooned at how bad things were is utter nonsense – they knew well in advance what would face them).

7% in Dublin down from 20% or so. As was also said on RTÉ, no appetite for an election any time soon.

Comments»

1. Organized Rage (@organizedrage) - May 27, 2014

“perhaps they were a generation of politicians just too wedded to getting into government at pretty much any cost, too wedded to staying there, not wedded at all to questioning why they were, what they were seeking to achieve,”

There is a real lesson for SF here, for if they do not learn this lesson they are liable to go the same way.

Like

2. Tomboktu - May 27, 2014

Dublin South – the right profile and fickle enough to forgive the party?

Like

Liberius - May 27, 2014

Three seats at the next election though, can’t see him improving the Greens performance enough to overcome that hurdle. I’d say Dublin Bay South, the old Dublin South East, would look more likely with four seats and one of the strongest Green votes at the last election; 6.8% I think, something to start with.

Like

irishelectionliterature - May 27, 2014

Wont exist next time around. Part of it gone to Dub SW , part Dun Laoghaire and rest in new 3 seat Dublin Rathdown. He wouldn’t win in a three seater.
Dublin Bay South the best bet.

Like

3. eamonncork - May 27, 2014

It’s the slightness rather than the return which is most striking.

Like

4. Michael Carley - May 27, 2014

The lesson Labour should have taken from the Greens’ experience in government is that if you are going to be that cynical, you can’t afford to be that stupid.

Like

Bert McCann - May 27, 2014

That the GP appeals to a middle-class demographic is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw. It has in essence become a bourgeois party and Eamon Ryan is the epitome of that categorisation. The folk who got elected got there because of their own hard work. The idea that their leader drew the votes to them is absurd. Ryan is one of the old leadership whose fingerprints the editorial refers to. The party leadership went one step further than abandoning promises. It jettisoned the founding principles on which the green movement was founded. After the disintegration of the green vote he and his colleagues should have stepped down gracefully and allowed new talent to step up. . It is worth remembering while speculating about Eamon’s electoral ambitions, that he failed to get elected this time. Remember that for every safe green voter there are several who left the party in disgust. A green-tinged constutuency doesn’t guaranteee a green majority. Hopefully some of the newly successful councillors will challenge the old guard and recoup what has been lost.

Like

5. Nessa Childers - May 27, 2014

Eamon Ryan will run in DBS. Been

Like

6. eamonncork - May 27, 2014

It’s probably been posted here before but what exactly are the constituencies for the next election?

Like

Liberius - May 27, 2014

It’s a lengthy read, but anyway.

Click to access report2012.pdf

Like

7. eamonncork - May 27, 2014

Cheers.

Like

8. eamonncork - May 27, 2014

By the way, has anyone got a contact E-Mail for Come Here to Me?

Like

Tomboktu - May 27, 2014

The email addresses are listed at the end of each blurb here:

About

Like

eamonncork - May 27, 2014

Danke.

Like

9. eoinmadden - May 27, 2014

A minor point but one difference between the GP expierence and the Labour one, is that Labour’s worst election (2014) has come directly after their best (2011).

Whereas the Greens worst election (2011) came after a bad one, 2009, and an ok-but-not-great one in 2008. I think its often overlooked that the election that led to the Greens going into govt with FF wasn’t actually a breakthrough one for either party.

Like

CMK - May 27, 2014

Good points. 2002 was the big breakthrough for the GP where I think they went from 2 TDs to 6 TDs, but 2007 there were knocked back gaining only 5 TDs.

Like

Ed Davitt - May 27, 2014

Well 6 actually, we lost Dan Boyle but gained Mary White. But almost every seat was close (vs the romping home we did in 2002 in some areas). By noon on count day 2007, it looked like we were at 2 seats (Trevor and Eamon).

On the substantive point, I think WBS has the nail on the head – for me it is the promises and the rhetoric that the LP is paying for now. I can’t decide whether it was reckless of them to go on like they did, knowing what they did, and knowing they’d have to serve with FG afterwards and follow the exact same policies, or try go for gold, and overtake FG and run a labour led government for once.

What are the policy areas people think they should be shifting to? I am pretty confused myself. I think they have done some good work on education and liberal issues, where no money is required for the change, a very bad job on political reform (which the Irish people have demonstrated they do not care about) and not so much on equality (although I did like what I was hearing on the homeless strategy. What are your ideas? What are the policies they should pursue, beyond pulling out of government.

Like

Ryan Meade - May 27, 2014

I think it’s too late for a policy shift, as the expectations they raised in their voters in 2011 are not now, and probably never were, achievable, certainly not in coalition with FG. Labour’s success in that election was based on raising the expectation that a genuinely fairer path was possible, paid for by repudiation or at least renegotiation of the bank debt.

Any such opportunity, if it ever existed, is now gone, and Labour are doomed to deliver at best a small fraction of what their voters thought they were voting for.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 27, 2014

Ed, I can’t see how the LP could possibly fashion economic policies that would satisfy its electorate at this point in government with FG, as Ryan says.

Like

10. irishelectionliterature - May 27, 2014

I see Seán Sherlock wont be contesting…..

Like

CL - May 27, 2014

Deputy leader?

Like

people beyond sense - May 27, 2014

That a Fr Dougal impersonator such as Sherlock could even been thought of as a contender shows the terminal position of the Labour Party

Like

11. Jolly Red Giant - May 27, 2014

The Greens have cooked their goose – they will remain remain a very small middle-class eco-party with a few councillors (and maybe an odd TD if some middle class elements want to abandon FG). The GP are scuppered because of the rising class divisions in society.

The LP are a different kettle of fish. I expect a complete clearout of the old-guard (with the possible exception of Howlin). Most of the old guard will not stand the next time out. If the old guard stay in the leadership FG would put the boot into them for the next budget knowing they can’t walk.

The young guns know their political career will come to a shuttering halt if things continue. There will be a scramble for the spoils of office for whatever time the government has left and they will demand all the spoils go to them. They will feel they can force concessions from FG and will threaten to walk knowing that their best chance of survival is by bringing down the government over austerity. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the water charges being postponed for a year. Ex- ‘Trot’ Alex White and ‘businessman’ Alan Kelly are the likely choices. White would be the smarter choice because of his past ‘Trot’ political education.

Like

workers republic - May 28, 2014

I didn’t know Alex White was an ex-“Trot”, He was one of the most right -wing in the government, in my opinion, he sounded like a FGer ,when definding the government on tv.Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, the ex-“Stalinists” were as right wing as some in “old L.P.”
I’d imagine Burton is the most likely to chosen as leader. Kathleen Lynch could also survive .Quinn and Rabbitte are finished, they’ll be happy with their fat pensions.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - May 28, 2014

White was in the League for a Workers Republic when he was in USI (and for some time after from what I understand).

Like

12. ejh - May 27, 2014

that year they arrived in government, saw the books and swooned at how bad things were

Very common claim, that. Somebody will sufficient knowledge of politics in different countries could write an amusing article on the subject. or even a short book.

Like

13. lcox - May 27, 2014

Rather than Stockholm syndrome I would talk about Jonestown syndrome for both GP and LP. The “cultishness” of those on the inside was reinforced both by pressure from the outside (the public increasingly became the enemy as it failed to vote the “right” way) and by defections from those who didn’t share the leadership’s single-minded vision and determination to solve all problems “decisively”.

By the way have any of those involved in either government ever said sorry? I’m thinking in particular of those who jumped ship or retired from politics.

Like

14. Ryan Meade - May 27, 2014

“it is striking where it is doing well, mostly – though not in all cases – in constituencies where there wasn’t a strong PBP or other challenge.”

I haven’t checked all the areas but I know that Claire Byrne, Ciarán Cuffe and Roderic O’Gorman all got elected alongside at least one PBP, AAA or left independent candidate.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 27, 2014

True, but it does seem to me that the GP managed to slip in not where there was no left challenge but there was a lesser one. NIC is a good example for Cuffe.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 27, 2014

I think the PBP point is a good one, although it’d be interesting to tease out exactly how much they’re in competition. In Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, PBP got 3 seats: 2 in Dun Laoghaire itself, albeit on a lower vote share than RBB’s personal performance in 09, and one Green got in there as well, with a long-declining Labour vote; in my own area of Killiney-Shankill, PBP nearly won a second seat after pulling just ahead of the second Labour incumbent on the transfers of the eliminated GP candidate, and even called a recount. But the relative strength of Labour in the area probably kept them both out. The other Green seat was in Dundrum where SF topped the poll but PBP didn’t really figure.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 27, 2014

As an overview I think both PBP and the GP were squeezed when either SF or Labour, or both, were strong, and vice versa – at least in my probably not very representative corner of the capital. E.g. Glencullen-Sandyford, out in the foothills of the apartment belt: Labour topped the poll and brought in two councillors, SF came in third after FG on 10%, and both PBP and the GP lost out on 6-7% each.

In a way that fits the thesis of SF replacing Labour as a popular social democratic-type party, with smaller ‘radical’ alternatives (RBB and PBP first came to prominence in the area with an environmental campaign, essentially – Save Our Seafront) So we already have two ‘middle-class eco-parties’.

Like

15. sonofstan - May 27, 2014

Two myths of contemporary Irish politics: Labour will ‘go the way’ of the Greens – they may go, but it will be in, to coin a phrase, ‘Labour’s Way’ and, two, Labour went into government because its leaders couldn’t wait to get their feet under the cabinet table.

FWIW, I believe that Gilmore et al were thoroughly convinced they were doing the right thing, both for the country and their voters. They were wrong on both counts, and I thought so at the time, as did many in the party, but assuming everything people you don’t agree with or like is motivated by selfish or contemptible motives is as simplistic and reductionist in its own way as the social theory associated with orthodox economics; that the only thing that motivates people is self- interest. This is not to excuse anything – people can do dreadful things for what appear to them as honourable reasons.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 27, 2014

I don’t think the LP could disappear, I do however think they could be seriously damaged as a truly national party. Secondly, in an odd way I agree with you that it’s not pure selfishness or contemptible motives, I think there were rationalisations aplenty as to why itw as the right thing to do to go into government. It certainly wasn’t just about pensions. But… I do think that – and I think the rhetoric bear this out – there was far too much, almost a bizarre reification of the offices of state over and above what, why and how a party like the LP should be doing once in them. It’s that narrowness, that blindness, that has come back to bite them.

Like

eamonncork - May 27, 2014

But I voted Labour for a couple of decades. It’s not that I assume selfish and contemptible motives on their part in this case because I don’t like them, It’s that I don’t like them because I assume selfish and contemptible motives on their part. I might be wrong but it’s hard to explain the absolute zeal with which they pursued a right wing economic agenda otherwise.
They’d been out of power for 15 years, this looked like their last chance to be in government so they went for it and never seriously considered jumping ship, or even flexing their muscles, because they judged it better to be in power than out of it. Had they as Labour did from 1992-1997 had a serious influence on government or even as the 1982-1987 administration of bitter memory mitigated Fine Gael’s thirst to put the boot into Labour voters I’d be more forgiving.
Now you could make a case that they weren’t motivated entirely by selfishness and the desire for power. And you’re probably right that it is reductive to see the whole thing in these terms. But then you’d have to explain Howlin and Quinn’s desire to punish the public service and Burton’s gung-ho attitude on social welfare and Job Bridge. And the explanation probably is that they didn’t believe in the social democratic principles they touted before the next election, that in fact deep down they agreed with the right wing viewpoint that these are “unrealistic,” and that there really is no alternative to austerity. In other words they didn’t sell out, they do think this is the way to go. But I’m not sure if that’s much better Sos with respect.
Anb by the way I’m not a kneejerk Labour basher, I agree with you that there could be an important role still for the party as a social democratic counterweight to Sinn Fein. I’d probably vote for it but these have been dog years.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 27, 2014

One other thought, that sort of contradicts what I say above. In 2006/7 or so I had a conversation with someone well inside the LP apparatus who entirely seriously told me as regards a piece of FF legislation that they (FF) had got hammered over because they wouldn’t fund it – can’t quite recall what it was – that they, the LP, wouldn’t have spent the money on it either but would have spun it better. I was genuinely taken aback, and this by the way was just about pre-crisis, because it seemed to speak of a cynicism as ingrained as any FFer.

Like

ejh - May 27, 2014

At the time (I think) and at various other times on here, I’ve observed that being the minor party in a governing coalition generally – as far as I can see – goes badly for that badly and often disastrously. This isn’t that unusual an example. Yet it’s hard to think of examples of parties turning down the opportunity to take that role. “Why do they do it?” seems to me to be quite an important question in politics, and one not often asked on a general level.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 27, 2014

Absolutely, what is the reason given the all too predictable outcomes?

Like

CL - May 27, 2014

The intellectual and political offensive of neoliberalism has been underway for 70 years or more. Why should Ireland be immune from the triumph of this ideology?

Like

ejh - May 27, 2014

Sure, but it’s not a question about Ireland as such, nor about neoliberalism. it’s in alrge part about whether the people invited to join a governing coalition as the junior parties ever reflect that the track record for taking that course is desperately bad, and if so why do they do it nevertheless?

People write autobiographies and give interviews, they must have something to say on the subject. (I mean we can come to our own conclusions, but I’m interested in the reasons they give. Later in life, that is, not so much at the time.)

Like

CL - May 27, 2014

Well it is about Ireland and about neoliberalism because that’s the ideology being implemented by F.G/Lab.
Their reactionary policies are not pulled out of thin air but are based on an economic philosophy. The highly paid economic advisors to Gilmore, Burton, and Bruton et al have been indoctrinated into neoclassical economics, and that forms the basis of their anti-working class policies. That Gilmore and company suddenly decided to get mean and nasty to the working class is inadequate as an explanation. How those implementing reactionary policies rationalize what they are doing is an interesting psychological question but does not negate the reactionary ideological thrust of their actions.

Like

ejh - May 28, 2014

If you want to answer a completely different question to the one being asked, why not answer it somewhere else, eh?

Like

CL - May 28, 2014

ejh, sorry if I miscontrued the question.
I thought i was answering the question: the question being why do smaller parties enter into coalition even though they know the fate of other small parties that have done so? My answer was that they enter into coalition in order to implement their ideology. For example, Labour entered into coalition with F.G, in order to implement the Labour party’s neoliberal ideology.

Like

sonofstan - May 27, 2014

@EC – re the enthusiasm for a right-wing agenda; it’s the desire to prove you’re grown up politicians, able to take the tough decisions; surrounded by people who never believed in anything much, it’s easy to feel naive and attempt to fit in by trying to match them in cynicism. Of course it ends up being indistinguishable in the end. SF are doing much the same in the North, for what its worth, though it’s a bit easier since coalition is to an extent forced upon them – or at least they can present it as such, when it suits them. Plus i imagine anytime a Shinner in Stormont gets notions, they send Gerry Kelly in to have a word.

That’s why I agree with you to an extent about Ming and his ilk; they may not be right about everything, but they’re not afraid of being who they are, of talking and dressing as they would outside the Dail and not minded to make friends with ‘the lads’. It was great the other night to hear so many ordinary Dublin accents on RTE for once; not the comic caricature of working class speech, but articulate people who talk the way most of the people who vote for them do – alongside Ruth Coppinger and Lynn Boylan, Miriam and Dobbo suddenly sound (even more) affected

Like

eamonncork - May 27, 2014

Agree wholeheartedly SOS, particularly with both the first and last sentences. It was genuinely great to hear those voices.
It reminds me of something I was once told by a guy who worked in the planning department of a local authority. A well known Fianna Fail TD who was also a businessman of considerable wealth brought in a group of people from a council estate in the area to meet him about some planning controversy or other. While they were there he ripped into the official, a whole, “You’re sitting there in your fancy suit laughing up your sleeve at these decent working class people,” number.
When they’d gone, he came back in to the official, apologised for having to put on the show and said, “Did you see them? That’s the scum I have to be dealing with.”
One good thing that’s happened is that there’s fewer guys like that representing constituents who they despise, something which has been a terrible feature of political life in this country. These days more people are barking themselves rather than hiring a dog.

Like

Tomboktu - May 28, 2014

Wasn’t there a formal complaint about RTÉ when Frank Cluskey died over their choices for Today in the Oireachtas? It included an extract from the tributes of various leaders in the Dáil and Seanad except the Labour leader in the Seanad, with the complaint being that he was not broadcast because of his accent.

Like

16. Mark P - May 27, 2014

I think there’s a false binary being created between genuine belief in neoliberal brutality on the one hand and having base or contemptible motives on the other. As if the two can’t coexist or as if whether we should want a particular Labour TD tarred and feathered should vary with the degree of careerism as opposed to sincere right wing zealotry we ascribe to them.

Like

eamonncork - May 27, 2014

There is a difference though Mark. And in a way the first is much worse for a party. You can clear out the cynics and careerists but if the party itself actually doesn’t believe what it stands for, then it is in big trouble.
Quinn, for example, has always been a right winger. He hasn’t really had to shed any principles along the way. Burton is an example of someone who was once on the left but now doesn’t seem to believe in that anymore. Whereas Gilmore is, I think, someone who knows better but just got fed up of being out of power. I know this may seem to you like a masochist’s taxonomy of the subtle differences between various forms of degradation. But we’ve all got our kinks.

Like

17. Down the Dail - May 27, 2014

Gilmore was a goon from day one. In the WP he voiced Marxists notions hoping to ride high one day. It’s those around him, advisors such as Mark Garrett, in the pay of neo-liberal corporations (Garrett is on secondment from McKinseys) who are the real power driving the Labour Party, that goons such as Gilmore have these people around them just points to there failure as serious people not any thing worthy of political analysis.

Like

Pasionario - May 28, 2014

If you look at the careers of a lot of politicians in Eastern Europe and Russia, you’ll see that they shifted seamlessly from one apparat to the next, replacing fielty towards the one-party state with devotion to neo-liberalism almost overnight. Many of these types wind up in prominent positions, not coincidentally, in Brussels — helpfully insulated from democratic pressure. The system may change but the Nomenklatura remains the same.

Check out the CV of this customer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siim_Kallas

I think Gilmore is basically the of the same stripe although it’s not cynicism so much as a Weberian tendency for certain kinds of personality to climb to the top of whichever dungheap they find themselves in. International Communism probably looked like a good bet in the mid-70s (oil crisis, Vietnam etc.) and, if things had gone a little differently, I have no doubt that Commissar Eamon would be lecturing us all on the necessity of reducing this month’s chocolate ration for the sake of fulfilling our fraternal obligations to the comrades in Frankfurt.

Incidentally, a new commissioner will be on his way to Brussels shortly and you know what, there’s an experienced elder statesman who’s suddenly become available. Fancy that.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 28, 2014

‘chocolate ration’

Brilliant 🙂

Like

CL - May 28, 2014

“tendency for certain kinds of personality to climb to the top of whichever dungheap they find themselves ”
-MIght explain why the Labour party leadership is full of sh**.

Like

18. P Kelly - May 27, 2014

Here’s my 2¢: The Greens are back (or at least back on their feet).

The latest opinion polls put the Green Party at ~4%. European election first preference vote 4.9%. I don’t know the percent of first preferences was in the locals but I imagine it is close to the same, probably little less.

At the 2007 general election, the per cent of Green first preferences was 4.7% resulting in 6 Dáil seats.

The 2004 local elections, first preferences were 3.9%, resulting in 18 city and county seats. If we take it that local support last Friday was about the same, 12 seats today isn’t far off that (given the volatility of seats when you get that low in number and the beating the party has taken in human and funding costs).

But that’s very low, isn’t it? That’s surely not the level of support should we expect?

Well, let’s look at Green results in other European countries. Taking a sample of European countries with Greens in parliament (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway), the average number of seats is 5.2%. Even the mighty German and Austrian Greens have only ~10% of parliamentary seats. In the European Parliament now, the Greens have 5.9% of seats.

In Ireland, 5.2% of Dáil seats in the next general election would be 8 seats. Not very different to the 6 (3.6%) the party had in 2007, when first preference votes were 4.7%.

The party has been through an awfully difficult couple of years and, structurally, I wonder can it fight a general election.

But, I would ask have the Greens actually grown in support since 2007? And, if the party can keep this support and overcome the funding and human problems it faces, how many Green TDs will we see at the next general election?

* * *

Can Labour do the same turnaround?

The Greens had no direct competitor for its political standpoint. Even the Fís Nua splinter is Green Left and so not really comparable. (So, akin to the Socialists, in fact, that their candidate in Dublin West had to advice Vincent Brown to ask their party hierarchy as they even existed.)

Labour on the other hand have a whole lot of competitors for its traditional clothing: the Socialists, the People Before Profit, the Worker’s Party. And is Sinn Féin gradually moving towards its social democrat space?

The Greens had an internal challenge, self-reflection and a stern telling off from the People to deal with. But the other parties left them alone to do so and didn’t pay them any heed.

Labour have not only to get up, they have to fight for their clothes, fend off attack, and argue why they should be forgiven when there’s another candidate from a comparable party that has not sinned.

And then there’s this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAS0c5AkiNg&t=59

And this: http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/fine-gael-every-little-hurts-labour-party-ad-from-the-2011-genral-election/

In contrast, the stickiest criticism of the Greens (aside from the bank guarantee) is that they brought in a carbon tax on fuel and motors: exactly as they promised to do.

Like

P Kelly - May 27, 2014

One thing that has changed for the Greens, however, is transfers from the left: they are not as transfer friendly from the left as they used to be.

That will impact on them (it cost Eamon Ryan the EP election, I believe) but it may wane between now and the next election since there is now the Labour goose to fry and as more time passes.

Like

Ryan Meade - May 28, 2014

That is certainly true although in this election the effect was not as damaging as I thought it might be. For example I don’t think what cost Ryan his seat was his failure to attract transfers from the left, rather it was the success of independent candidates (in this case Nessa Childers) in capturing these transfers. Many voters don’t seem to have been particularly concerned about the political leanings of the independents, as long as they weren’t associated with any of the main parties.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 28, 2014

Also, Ryan’s vote share was almost exactly equal to Patricia McKenna’s when she won the seat in 2004, and also in 1999, although with four seats each time the quota was lower. He came awfully close and would have won without the greater draw of transfers away from him. So there’s truth in both sides of the argument.

“Many voters don’t seem to have been particularly concerned about the political leanings of the independents, as long as they weren’t associated with any of the main parties.” Does that explain the SP transfers to Childers then? The big thing is the emergence of a far-left block of transfers; who FF or LP or FG voters transfers to isn’t as important anymore.

Like

Ryan Meade - May 28, 2014

The question for the left is whether this is in fact a “far-left block of transfers”. My view is that it doesn’t belong to the far left but that in this instance the far left were included in a block with independents as an alternative to those parties which have already “had a go”.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 28, 2014

Hmm… I think the SP/PBP vote this year is reasonably consistent with the SP’s in 2009, but I was surprised how much did transfer and transferred to both Childers and Ryan. It seemed more open-minded and/or pragmatic than the partisanship on display here – which isn’t really surprising of course, in that we’re talking about a relatively broad pool of voters in an election rather than the committed core activists stating their opinions. Interesting to know though if the SP contributors (or Murphy voters generally) on here gave preferences to Childers?

Like

Joe - May 28, 2014

Don’t know where this comment will end up but it’s in reply to Hardcorefornerds above. I voted 1 Murphy and 2 Smith and stopped there. I just didn’t bother transferring on to Childers and Costello which is where, on another day, I might have gone next. I just didn’t bother because at the time I thought why bother. Either way I wouldn’t have been transferring to Ryan because I have never forgiven the Greens for something that happened in the local elections of ’90 or ’91.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

“I don’t think what cost Ryan his seat was his failure to attract transfers from the left, rather it was the success of independent candidates (in this case Nessa Childers) in capturing these transfers.”

That’s the same thing, surely? He didn’t get those transfers. Childers did. And all he needed was a thousand or so more of them.

The ironic thing is that by the left not transferring (just a little) more to Ryan, a right-wing candidate pipped him and got in.

Like

EamonnCork - May 28, 2014

Ryan is a right-wing candidate.

Like

EamonnCork - May 28, 2014

He’s certainly not any further to the left than Nessa Childers.

Like

Sense - May 28, 2014

He’s as rightwing as Hayes, and his policies actually in practice have increased poverty more than Hayes

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 28, 2014

Do you mean Hayes? (I mean, I voted for Ryan but I wouldn’t argue that he’s to the left of Childers) In which case, blame Costello – Ryan finished just over 1,000 votes behind Hayes, and received 2,000 fewer of her transfers than did Hayes. Ryan was always behind him though and for a FG to miss out on a seat would have been a real shock.

Like

eamonncork - May 28, 2014

I’ll do them the favour of believing they means Hayes. I don’t want to seem obtuse but I’d love to know what left-wing qualities Ryan is presumed to possess. And I say this as someone who transferred to Grace O’Sullivan in South because I respect her campaigning background. She also had the advantage of not signing off on the bank bail-out, NAMA and the Fianna Fail austerity measures. And not justifying them on the grounds that this was what ‘responsible’ coalition parties.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

“I don’t want to seem obtuse but I’d love to know what left-wing qualities Ryan is presumed to possess.”

I didn’t say Ryan is left wing. I implied that Hayes is right wing. (Does anyone dispute that?)

As for Ryan, I know, I know. Lefties say the Greens are right. Righties say the Greens are left.

Meanwhile the Greens themselves (and textbooks) will say that Green politics cannot be placed on that spectrum.

It’s a terrible state of affairs. And rather a ridiculous thing for the Greens (and textbooks) to claim. As we all know, every one of the world’s travails can be boiled down to the struggle between labour and capital!

Fight on, comrades! 🙂

Like

CL - May 28, 2014

‘By their deeds ye shall know them’.

Ryan and the Greens helped Fianna Fail implement disastrous, regressive, anti-working class policies. Ryan is a class warrior on the side of capital.
Childers, by contrast, resigned from the Labour party in opposition to Labour’s anti-working class austerity policies.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

Upon reading back, the last set of comments (including my own) may raise a question more pertinent for Labour.

Have they stopped believing in class struggle? Are they in fact in the thrall of the bourgeoisie? Have they succumbed to false consciousness?

Are they meaningful anymore to the struggle of “labour”? Are they even anymore a party of the left?

Like

Gewerkschaftler - May 28, 2014

P Kelly – the Greens claim to be neither Right or Left is, from the point of view of green socialists, absurd. And for this simple reason:

To assume, as many Greens do, that within a system (namely capitalism), based on unending material growth and accumulation in fewer and fewer hands, that somehow a sustainable economy is possible, betrays a lack of knowledge of basic economic history and actuality, or the wishful ignoring of these realities.

(Here I mean sustainable in the minimal sense of bringing energy and raw material use down to renewable / recyclable levels).

Therefore those Greens that refuse to enter into a critique of capitalism in itself must be counted as a party of the status-quo, if not of the right. My experience of the Irish Green party is that at least the leadership fall into this category.

Like

Ryan Meade - May 28, 2014

“That’s the same thing, surely? He didn’t get those transfers. Childers did. And all he needed was a thousand or so more of them.”

It’s not quite the same thing, although the distinction might be subtle. Eamon would have won the seat without any additional transfers had there not been such a strong transfer from Murphy to Childers. The size of this transfer was more akin to the type of transfer you see between two candidates of the same party rather than between two candidates with only broadly similar political philosophies (accepting, just for the sake of argument, that Childers has a similar political philosophy to Murphy and Smith – she certainly had this election).

Like

EamonnCork - May 28, 2014

In all their smugness, obtuseness and utter naivete masquerading as world weary cynicism P. Kelly’s posts here sum up everything that is wrong with the Irish Greens. God love them.

Like

EamonnCork - May 28, 2014

They’re the most dispiriting posts from the Greens since the guy who came on here and said that the middle classes care more about the environment because he saw lots of plastic bags blowing around the streets in working class areas.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

Eamon, sorry if that’s how I came across but the pile on about Ryan being right wing is the sort of stuff I roll my eyes at.

Ryan,

“…Childers has a similar political philosophy to Murphy and Smith – she certainly had this election…”

There was the “Independents Day” thing. Ryan was not part of that.

Murphy clearly has a well-formed political philosophy. I genuinely don’t know what political philosophy Childers has.

Like

Mark P - May 28, 2014

Ryan is a neoliberal, business as usual, right winger with a very slightly unusual liking for bikes. As for Childers, nobody is going to argue that she’s ever shown much sign of a “well formed political philosophy”, unless perhaps being against bad things and in favour of good ones counts, but she was running as a critic of austerity from the left.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

“Ryan is a neoliberal…”

He certainly believes in market economics. Not unfettered. But a lot of his thinking involves markets of various kinds.

I don’t think that’s make-or-break (from a Green perspective, anyway). If a market approach works, why not use it? Or it doesn’t, don’t be bound to it.

Like

Mark P - May 28, 2014

A market approach to environmentalism does not work because the capitalist “market” is premised on anarchic competition for the spoils of endless growth, which is fundamentally incompatible with protecting the planet.

But leaving that aside for a moment, you have now shifted from arguing that the Greens can’t be fitted into left or right categories to accepting that they are pro-market neoliberals. A step forward.

The Greens are Blueshirts on bikes.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

“…you have now shifted from arguing that the Greens can’t be fitted into left or right categories to accepting that they are pro-market neoliberals.”

I said that I think an individual within the Green Party believes in market economics. But that I don’t think that individual believes in unfettered market economics.

I also said that I don’t think market economics is make-or-break from a Green perspective.

That’s all very non-committal for a supposed “pro-market neoliberal”. Not left or right.

“Blueshirts on bikes.”

I might get that made up into a T-shirt. Very witty.

Like

Mark P - May 28, 2014

It’s genuinely useful to have an actual Green show up here from time to time, to remind people what they actually represent and ensure that the gradual fading of memory over time doesn’t lead anyone to start feeling the slightest sympathy for them again.

It’s particularly worth noting – according to an acquaintance who was once on their staff – that one “lesson” the GP rump has “learned” from its experience in government is that they were right to leave protest politics behind and to adopt what they see as a serious, professional, mainstream approach.

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

“…one ‘lesson’ the GP rump has ‘learned’ from its experience in government is that they were right to leave protest politics behind and to adopt what they see as a serious, professional, mainstream approach.”

My experience is the exact opposite. In my opinion, that dice with shallow “professional” politics (the dreadful lure to ape pseudo-“pragmatic” men) was almost the death of the Green Party.

Thankfully, in my experience, campaign and activist politics (maybe not “protest” for the sake of protest) is a core value of the party again.

My learning from the wipe out is that the party cannot waver from that again. It is a core contribution that the party has to make to Irish politics. (Not that it is unique in making a contribution like that but it is a core part of what the the party has to contribute.)

Like

Mark P - May 28, 2014

Where is this allegedly revived “campaign and activist politics” on show precisely?

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

Individuals involved and a renewed recognition by the party that the activist nature of the party, and especially its members, is very important.

I don’t think the “professional” agenda would cut much mustard any more. A proof of this will be borne out (or not!) over the coming years.

But the focus is on the quality of people within the party.

Groups like PBP and the Socialists do campaigning – and do it very well.

In my experience, the Green Party itself has never campaigned itself very much.

Rather, in my view, it has always been individuals within the party from whom the party drew its activist credentials. And what the Green Party was known for (and I think will still be) was for good, principled and active people.

The lure of “professional” and “pragmatic” politics nearly killed that, I think. And it will take time to earn back the respect lost through that vain naivety.

Like

19. Pasionario - May 28, 2014

The section of Eamo’s wikipedia profile on his “record in office” is quite amusing. Wind capacity up by 100%! The National Broadband Scheme completed! And in schools too! And electric cars zipping across this green and fertile land of ours!

By the end of reading it, I was half-expecting to be told that Ryan had been responsible for single-handedly exceeding the targets of the seventh Five-Year Plan in FOUR years. Cue stormy applause.

No doubt this was authored by some entirely objective authority of course:

“Record in office

During Ryan’s period in office, installed wind capacity in Ireland doubled, and by 2010 the average daily energy derived from renewable sources (as a percentage of total demand) had increased to 17%, peaking at 42%.[6][7][8] He also committed Ireland to the European Super Grid programme in 2009 and announced major government investment in Marine energy research projects.[9] Government schemes were expanded for home energy retrofitting as uptake increased,[10] the National Broadband Scheme was completed,[11] a Broadband for Schools Scheme launched,[12] and a national electric vehicle and chargepoint initiative was announced in conjunction with the ESB Electric Ireland and Peugeot Citroën, which was subsequently implemented by the new government.[13][14]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_Ryan

Like

20. roddy - May 28, 2014

son of stan ,I have to agree with you about how refreshing it was to hear the totally genuine accents of Ruth and Lynn in the RTE studios.I was also delighted to see Seamus Healey and his team at the count a couple of years ago belting out ” slievenamon” as they celebrated victory.I was reminded of this on Monday night as Liah Ni Riada and co (with her brother on the accordion) gave a pub session type rendition of “mo giolla mear” as the blueshirts and their ilk looked on mortified.People being true to themselves and f— the begrudgers!

Like

sonofstan - May 28, 2014

Indeed – the rendition of Mo Ghile Mear had be daydreaming about a Jacobite bloc in Strasbourg.

Like

21. roddy - May 28, 2014

I think you are being a bit serious with regard to ideological purity regarding an old song which predates republicanism in Ireland.Ni Riadas brother is associated with a very pleasant arrangement of the old song which has been covered by Mary Black ,the Chieftains and sting among others.It was even performed at a recent 1913 lockout celebration in Dublin.The point I was making was the totally unstuffy atmosphere that most people from the socialist ,republican and Ming type organisations.The most leftwing Irish singer EVER could belt out songs like “will you come to the bower ” which praised leaders of the old gaelic order without having to consult some thought police beforehand.I am of course referring to Luke Kelly who although a lifelong communist could do the best version of “the foggy dew” I ever heard complete with reference to “the angelus bell oer the Liffey swell”

Like

sonofstan - May 28, 2014

I was joking 🙂 – anyway I have a certain romantic regard for the Jacobite cause.

Like

22. hardcorefornerds - May 28, 2014

The thing about Ryan/the Greens, and why I gave him my no. 1 (Murphy 2, Childers 3), is while they’re certainly not as economically left as I’d like, I think it’s important for Ireland to have a specifically environmental political party (or movement, at least). While saying they’re neither left or right isn’t quite true, and is something of a cop-out from defending the economic aspect of their policies, I think the reason why they’ve been associated with the left in the past has been due to similar associations with protest against a conservative establishment that gave the environment very little regard. Now that the issue is more widely accepted, at least in theory, things are a bit more complex and there are more divisions about what is the most effective direction to take.

I accept Gewerkschaftler’s points and would be sympathetic to the analysis – but it is just that, an analysis which is not necessarily widely shared beyond even parts of the left. Rather than waiting for theoretical socialism to become mainstream first, it seems more effective to support mainstream environmentalism and encourage it in a socialist direction where possible. Maybe that’s putting the cart before the horse, but to stretch a metaphor we don’t quite have a horse yet, and maybe a stalled cart could be the necessary impetus to get one.

Frankly, the urge to excommunicate people and movements from ‘the left’ is not a very flattering one, and is why since most on here would be of the ‘further’ left (and as would I in terms of many of its ideas, but not in their implementation) I would propose using the term ‘centre’ more instead. I understand rhetorically that support for the banking bailouts, austerity, etc is de facto anti-working class and thus right-wing, but the fact is many people who would still define themselves as at least partly on the left will vote (ok, perhaps not that many anymore) for Greens or Labour rather than the SP or SF. There are wider issues about why that centre is so rightward economically, in historical terms, the inexorable rise of neoliberalism etc, but there are also dimensions other than the economic, albeit still open to (intersectional) analysis as such, where people look to what they see as ‘the left’ to espouse progressive principles.

(Also, since the tagline of this blog is for “lefties too stubborn to quit”, I think it should apply to both flanks…)

Like

P Kelly - May 28, 2014

All good points.

There is also the older meaning of the term “left”: a party of change.

In that sense, the Greens are clearly a party of change (“left”) in broad terms: change in how we think about democracy, our environment, life, etc.

But, in several specific and immediate issues facing Ireland, the Greens are not unequivocally “left” in that sense.

Many in the Greens support water metering (placing them on the “right” in that sense), for example, but eyes would pop at hearing the likes of those on Prime Time the other night describe water as a utility like any other to be bought and sold at market rates (thus placing them on the “left”).

And Greens support the introduction of local authority taxes (placing them on the “right” on that issue) but fall over at the short-sightedness and absence of democracy in the Local Property Tax (placing them on the “left”).

On the “the urge to excommunicate people and movements from ‘the left’”, I think the trend among the left to excommunicate the Greens is myopic – but understandable.

In some ways, however, it’s for the good that the left (in the labour/capital sense) to realise that the Greens aren’t socialists. And good too for the Greens, in a sense, because it forces a more defining view of oneself.

Like

workers republic - May 28, 2014

Marx famously said that the alternative to Socialism was barbarism, At a lecture at the Socialist Republican Forum Bernadette Mac Aliskey said the alternative is annihilation..This is something many socialists don’t grasp. This is The 21st century not the 19th , we are destroying forests and arable land, squandering precious resources; while the oil moguls and arms manufacturers who bankroll the US capitalist parties are pushing
for more growth because growth means profit

. Growth means waste and pollution, it is poisoning the planet.

Like

workers republic - May 28, 2014

(continued)
Socialists must also be enviormentists. We need Green Socialists and Socialists Greens.
The clock is ticking!

Like

P Kelly - May 29, 2014

Yup, in lots of ways.

However, there is a difference between appreciating the Marxist critique and drinking the socialist Kool-Aid. Why would a socialised republic would be any less brutal on people and the environment? How would it address the scale of production? How would it address alienation?

Greens, in fairness, probably do a better job day-to-day at tackling those kinds of issues in the real world.

More immediately, though, obnoxious terms like “working class” vs. “middle class”, like you can read here, don’t do the socialist cause much favours.

I was raised in what would be called here a “working class” home but I never heard the term until I encountered socialism. They are terms that divide proletariat. It is a false consciousness.

Like

workers republic - May 29, 2014

“dividing the proletariet”? My understanding of the term, is that it refers to the class that can only bargain with it’s labour . Socialists endeavor to unite the proletariat .It is the capitalist media,(Connolly called them “the paid liars of the Ruling Class) who try to divide them. They refer to areas where better paid workers or with more job security as ” Middle Class areas”. When we were growing up phrases like ” Working Class were rarely heard, simply because class consciousness was not encouraged, it was discouraged, I remember in the 60s a teacher was dismissed because he use Connolly’s Labour in Irish History as a history text book . Did his union do anything for him? Not as far as I know. We learned about the Easter Rising, but not about the 1913 Lock-out!

Like

P Kelly - May 29, 2014

I agree.

Reading some comments here, however, you would imagine that the “middle class” were not part of the “working class”.

And if “middle class” means “better paid workers with more job security” (which I agree it is) then you’d have to wonder why it seems to be a dirty word to some so-called Marxists?

Like

Mark P - May 29, 2014

Greens “in fairness” do nothing useful “in the real world” or anywhere else outside of your imagination.

Like

23. roddy - May 28, 2014

The Greens are overwhelmingly middle class in both membership and outlook.It would be safe to say their TD’s never interacted with anyone from a working class background socially in their lives.

Like

24. roddy - May 28, 2014

SOS ,sorry for not realizing you were joking .It’s just that many on the left tend to over analyse everything in a way that most ordinary people never do.I think that everyone on here would be united in trying to better the conditions of working people but working people tend to be more concerned about good jobs ,good health care and good education services.Here in Ireland they also tend to be overwhelmingly anti imperialist and take the correct side in world conflicts.However they can like a song or a film without dissecting it for some underlying theme whereupon they can decide if it can be enjoyed or not.

Like

25. workers republic - May 29, 2014

The point I made, is that it does not mean that; they are working Class. The point is that is a term to divide the working Class. I did not say that better paid workers were called Middle Class .It is journalists in the capitalist media .
Obviously it seems to be a sore point with some people who consider themselves “middle class “.
Originally the meaning of the term related to a time when the Upper Class was the Aristocracy, the so-called ” Lower Classes” were serfs, peasants, servants and some other classes. The Middle Classes included Merchants, “learned professions” some clergy commissioned army officers and entitled Landowners.
The phrase is redundant, and is not used by me.
Re. the Greens, the GP did nothing, when in government with FF, to stop capitalism polluting this place,ie Irish Ispat polluted Cork Harbour,greedy developers built houses far away
from cities which have since been bulldozed down.Reckless lending and borrowing crippled the economy and caused massive suffering, including suicides. All in the watch of FF and the GP.

Like

Ryan Meade - May 29, 2014

Ah here, there are plenty of charges you could have levelled at the Greens in government but the ones you mention have very little to do with them. Irish Ispat folded in 2001 after merrily polluting Haulbowline for a few decades after Dick Spring sold them Irish Steel for £1. The Greens clamped down on speculative development with the 2010 Planning Act, the first legislation to deal with the issues raised by the planning tribunals. The reckless lending which crippled the economy peaked from 2001 on, it just happened to come to a disastrous end during 2007/2008.

I know I probably wouldn’t get very far defending the Greens here but I do find your choice of examples a bit odd.

Like

P Kelly - May 29, 2014

“The phrase is redundant, and is not used by me.”

Same. I wasn’t directing those comments at you.

It was a comment on making a distinction between parties that have a “working class” base and the Greens who have a “middle class” base, as if the “middle class” wasn’t “working class”. (A distinction is made elsewhere on this page.)

“Re. the Greens..in government…”

The three issues you raise (Irish Ispat, bad planning, over lending/borrowing) are a strange choice.

They are all issues the Greens raised in Opposition and that came home to roost while the Greens were in Government. But none of them you can say the Greens are responsible for.

You could have raised Shannon, or Corrib, or fracking, for example. They are things the Greens could have done something about. But the ones you raised, it was too late by the time they got there.

Of the three, bad planning was the one most squarely addressed: in the Planning Act 2010.

The credit crunch hit in August 2007, making the need to address over lending/borrowing redundant. However, Nyberg report, which plainly points to business and regulatory practices as being the cause of the crash, was at the Green Party’s behest.

On Irish Ispat, the news from the EC that Ireland had to clean it up came in during the Green term in government (in 2009). The ball had apparently started rolling in the OPW to develop a plan to tackle the issue before then. I don’t know if that was at the behest of the Greens or if it would have happened anyway.

In any case, you can’t blame the Greens for polluting it or for it was left for so long in the state it was. Or am I picking you up wrong?

Like

26. eamonncork - May 29, 2014

However they did ensure that somewhere today in Meath a stag runs free and alive. If he was able to fit his hooves on the keyboard I’m sure he’d tell us how grateful he is.

Like

27. John Goodwillie - May 29, 2014

An underlying current in this theme is the role of the Labour Party. Is it a typical social democratic party of the current era, or is it unique? If it is a typical social democratic party, then it should exemplify the general bankruptcy of social democracy, which has run out of reformist perspectives by accepting neo-liberal trends (as eamonncork and CL hint). But does that mean that it is indistinguishable from neo-liberalism? Is it simply a cover for neo-liberalism to obtain acceptance from a specific section of the population, or does it have a reformist potential, in other words could the Labour Party in a coalition government make some sort of difference, assuming it had a bit more resolution than at present?

Similarly, could the Green Party in a coalition government (if the possibility arises again in the future) make some sort of difference? Since Green politics is a different, and in my opinion more viable, type of reformism. And the point of reformism is to work within capitalism, yes, but not to accept it totally as Gewerksschaftler and Mark P imagine.

Of course the failure to respond to the oncoming environmental crisis will probably produce some sort of unforeseeable rupture, but this is outside the scope of electoral politics. My point is that Green politics rejects the idea that the solution is to be found in “rising class differences in society” as Jolly Red Giant suggests.

Participation in a coalition government with more right-wing forces is a clear part of a reformist perspective: that is, it is one of the options that will occur, and whether to participate is a matter of strategy and not one of principle.

Like

P Kelly - May 29, 2014

One of the absurdities of Irish party politics was that parties like Labour and the Greens would go into coalition with a conservative party.

It would never do them any good. And the more natural coalition was of course FF and FG.

Maybe at the next election, we will have the opportunity to develop a dynamic whereby government will be a choice between FF/FG or a grand coalition of the left (meaning parties of change).

If that choice was to be the dynamic into the future, it may be for the better of both the country and parties like Labour, the Greens, the Socialists, PBP, Sinn Féin, etc.

Like

fergal - May 30, 2014

A FF-FG coalition has to happen- a big left eaning coalition is the way to go. Unfortunately, the doctinaires will tell you that Labour, Greens and SF are capitalist parties and they can’t coalesce with them.
Which brings us neatly to the question what is a capitalist? A person who has a mortgage? A person who has a small business? A person who is a small farmer?

Like

Gewerkschaftler - May 30, 2014

A capitalist is someone who doesn’t have to work at all and can still enjoy a relatively high standard of living but can live of the rent & profits he/she can extract from what he personally owns, or is owned on his exclusive benefit by various trust arrangements, tax avoidance vehicles, wealth-hiding vehicles etc. etc.

In other words they live off the disposition of their capital, rather than their labour power. The fact that some capitalists are also workaholics is a structural side-issue.

Like

fergal - May 30, 2014

According to the daily mail “someone who doesn’t have to work at all and can still enjoy a relatively high standard of living” is everybody on the dole!!
Gewerschaftler so a mortgageholder, a small business person and a a small farmer are not capitalists as they all live off their labour power.
When marxists talk about expropriating the means of production what happens to the “small” person, as in the three examples above? Do they become employess of the working class or the state or what happens?

Like

Mark P - May 30, 2014

Ah, “doctrinaires”, a delightful new term for people familiar with the history and role in government of those three parties. Perhaps we can pair it with “fantasists”, a rather more accurate term for people who, despite all evidence to the contrary, imagine that three business as usual parties, all of which have been in government in one jurisdiction or the other, and all of which are committed to one version or another of neoliberal capitalism, can somehow be convinced to lead us to a social democratic utopia.

Like

fergal - May 30, 2014

-Thanks for defining doctrinaire , Mark. So, a left leaning coalition will be make up of PBP; SP and Left Indos….and I’m the fantasist!

Like

Mark P - May 30, 2014

If I was suggesting that such a coalition was on the agenda I’d be just as much a fantasist as people who dream of three capitalist parties forming a left social democratic coalition. But I am not suggesting such a thing.

Instead I’m of the view that the actual left is small and weak and nowhere near contending for government power. Changing that is going to be a long, complex, difficult process with absolutely no guarantee of success. No delusions of grandeur are involved. And also no delusions that three business as usual capitalist parties – all of which have governed as exactly that – are going to lead us into a glorious left wing future. Fantasising about the fictitious cavalry coming to the rescue is a perfectly understandable response to a desperate situation but it doesn’t move us one millimeter closer to building a socialist movement of actual significance. If that particular cavalry comes over the hill, you will soon discover that we are the Indians.

I may be an “optimist” when it comes to our ultimate goals, but I’m a great deal more pessimistic than most here when it comes to assessing where we actually are. Wishful thinking is not a strategy.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 30, 2014

John, those are very interesting points. I’m not sure the distinction is between reformism and neoliberalism, as you seem to suggest – as (to twist your words slightly) ‘reform’ can very much be a tool of the right, either rhetorically (FG; also, reading Padraig Yeates’ history of Dublin in the revolutionary period, it was amusing to note the prominence of ‘Municipal Reform’ councillors on the right wing of local government) or more practically/structurally, which I think is the deeper significance of neoliberalism. My own theory currently is that the senior Labour figures, and many junior ones, genuinely do believe that what most here would see as ‘neoliberal’ reforms are the way to effect a progressive society – not necessarily because they’ve become more ‘right’ (although that is a factor dating back to DL/WP influences), but because the traditional social democratic model has undergone such an assault in economic and ideological terms it is no longer viewed as feasible. Added to this the influence of Europe, where Ireland is perhaps held between competing currents of US tech/finance neoliberalism and the EU model of ordoliberalism, which places more emphasis on government regulation of things like social welfare/’labour activation’ as the means to shape the social market economy, without supporting what it sees as the brute excesses of American neoliberalism or the failed systems of either socialism or traditional social democracy (the alternative, according to an article I read yesterday, is ‘neo-corporatism’).

Like

John Goodwillie - May 30, 2014

By reformism I meant the reformist tradition in the socialist movement, and by analogy green reformism which similarly wants to move away from the word features of capitalism rather than reinforce them as neoliberalism wishes to do.

I doubt that many in Labour are by conviction as committed neoliberals as you imagine, however about their practice.

The fact that you posit a divergence between “ordoliberalism” and “brute excesses” suggests that you see a choice there, and if there is a choice one of them is presumably more progressive.

Like

28. Gewerkschaftler - May 30, 2014

Just briefly –

Good to see Greens defending their corner here.

Just to say that I expect to continue to campaign with Greens on many issues and that do good work, especially at the European level on many issues. The coming campaign against TTIP will come as much from Green as from Left circles. But for probably for the wrong reasons; it’s not about chlorinated chickens, people, but more about the making illegal by treaty even of even mild forms of opposition to to the totalitarianism of the market.

There are still some good left Greens in action – Berlin/Kreuzberg’s Ströbele is an example – he’s be a thorn in the side of the energy giants and the German deep state for as long as I can remember.

However I would suggest to you that governments in which Greens have taken part have been disastrous for the working and non-working poor (I won’t offend your sensibilities by using the word class).

Exhibition 1: SPD/Green government of the early 21st Century in Germany – a massive attack on the living standards and job security of the poor through Agenda 2010. Germany has seen a massive gap in wealth distribution grow faster than ever since that government.

Exhibition 2: The FF/Green Government in Ireland (South). The voluntary transformation of €60Billion of private gambling losses into public debt, which will blight the country for generations.

I like to assume that the Greens in these coalitions were people of good will, who didn’t deliberately set out to ruin so many peoples lives. So why did they do it?

a) Mainstream Greens were and remain illiterate in political economy, being unable to image social forms outside the hegemonic market form, or a romantised version of the village economy.

b) Mainstream Greens operate overwhelmingly from a middle class milieu, are sheltered from and don’t significantly experience within their social circles the consequences of their alliance with or passive acceptance of market totalitarianism. Not for nothing is the average per capita income among their voters highest for the Green Party in Germany.

…the failed systems of either socialism or traditional social democracy

Hm… I’m not aware of democratic socialism having been tried anywhere on a large scale for an extended period of time. Much less democratic communism.

And that wasn’t as brief as I intended it to be…

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 30, 2014

On the bank bailout, I wonder if too much is made of the Greens’ agency in that, especially given the division in the opposition (LP/SF) at the time. But of course it’s a cross they have to bear (how they bear it, in terms of justifying it by reference to exigencies or inherent virtues, is perhaps significant) and I wouldn’t expect a sympathetic view here. Your point about economic illiteracy which relates to that is well made. However, a fundamental point of the Green analysis is that it ultimately doesn’t fit with orthodox economics: everything ‘environmental’ in the neoclassical framework is effectively ‘negative externalities’. That doesn’t mean many Greens don’t favour using market approaches in society, but to the extent that their issues become ‘internalities’, as it were – a flawed but plausible approach in the mainstream discourse. However, I don’t know if Marxist analysis is much better – though there are post-Marxist ecological analyses.

On the class issue, I try not to let my (middle-class) sensibilities get to me, but I think there are ways in which the Greens and environmental politics could appeal more outside their traditional electorate. Issues like planning and transport for example, aren’t just ‘environmental’ in the sense of pollution and nature, but also the social environment – the extent to which people are made reliant on cars in far-flung suburbs, for example, and how that has a both an economic cost and an effect on the community. However, those arguments are perhaps better made by working-class socialist movements, and I wouldn’t discount the extent to which ‘reds’ take on some ‘green’ issues. The interesting thing is where a group like PBP starts taking middle-class votes with a take that’s (ostensibly) somewhere in the middle.

Oh, and you’re right – it was more the failure of social democracy (ironically expressed quite similarly to criticisms here) and the general unthinkability of socialism and/or Marxism. (‘A Viking We Will Go! Neo-Corporatism and Social Europe’ in the German Law Journal was the article)

Like

Gewerkschaftler - May 30, 2014

Hi hardcore,

As far as I’m aware most / many Reds have taken on ‘Green issues’.

Actually it goes a bit deeper than that. Most of us are aware that market totalitarianism is laying waste to the planet while it exhausts many resources essential to ‘materially advanced civilisation’.

Capitalism strip-mines the future of material possibility.

Precisely because we think that significant reform of said totalitarianism is likely to come to late in terms of climate change and resource depletion, we are working for the end of the economic system that is strip-mining the planet.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 30, 2014

I suppose my way of looking at it is people have been trying to change capitalism for over a 100 years, and modern environmentalism is less than half that age.

Another is that it isn’t specifically capitalism that does damage to the environment – whether you consider the USSR ‘state capitalism’ or corrupted socialism, the methods of industry did the same damage. Or modern China, as a partly communist country enmeshed within global capitalism; I have a housemate studying ecology who was telling me about the massive pollution in their rivers – I told him it sounded like the US in the 1970s, before the EPA cleaned things up and the industry was exported to… China. I think this links with the characterisation of Green politics as ‘postmaterialist’, which seems laughable now but made more sense pre-crisis. The thing is material issues have largely been transported elsewhere. So an analysis of capitalism is necessary, and I would argue at least implicit/potential in environmentalism, but at the same time an ethics of sustainability is essential as a basis for whatever comes after.

As mentioned above, that all goes somewhat beyond electoral politics. I support both environmentalism and socialism, but tend to prioritise the former electorally. I don’t know if there are more effective ways to merge them, but a large part of it honestly is that I don’t find the further left very credible in Ireland (not that the Greens have been spectacularly effective, or indeed haven’t been counter-productive in certain respects… but I guess it comes down to them seeming a more plausible kind of reformism, as well as expressing a radical social idea).

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 30, 2014

It would be good to have some form of serious Red/Green formation. Or Green/Red, I’m not fussy.

Like

Mark P - May 30, 2014

The bank guarantee is the only thing of any significance that the Green Party ever “achieved”. All the rest is waffle.

Like

29. makedoanmend - May 30, 2014

The thing I remember most about the Greens after the election but before they formally entered govt with FF was the necessity of purifying the party. Anything remotely radical, especially if someone had a left leaning tendency, was to suggest they had really “misunderstood” what green politics was all about. The message was thanks for the support and all but we really don’t need your sort now – we are now responsible politicians who will make the difficult choices. Nohting I’ve read in this post seems to have changed that outlook.

Working class people, indeed the class of people whom the neoliberal ideologues wish to concretely create so they can use them as economic fodder and as a lesson to the middle classes, do need elected reps who will make difficult choices – like siding with the working class against the oligarchs, corporate shills and their plastic politicians.

We need to fundamentally change the economic system or we change nothing.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 30, 2014

So we change nothing because we need to change everything?

All political movements have to deal with more radical elements when going into government, coalition especially. These are just the typical debates about reformism.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 30, 2014

I think there’s room for a balance, that we attempt to change everything and also make whatever changes we can. My particular disappointment with GP participation in 2007 (whatever about later down the track) was that it seemed almost as if there was a sense that they had to do this to remain relevant. I understand that on a human level, but I think they sold themselves short.

Like

hardcorefornerds - May 30, 2014

Sounds like the LP, then – at least the upper echelons?

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 30, 2014

To some extent perhaps, but I think there wasn’t quite the level of cynicism extant in 2011. Not that that makes decisions subsequent to 2007 acceptable.

Like

Ryan Meade - May 30, 2014

Sorry I don’t follow that. Are you saying Greens in 2007 or Labour in 2011 were more cynical?

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 30, 2014

LP was much more cynical IMO. Indeed I’d argue the circumstances were very different which fed into it and makes the LPs position actually worse. I should have phrased it more clearly… ‘I think there wasn’t quite the level of cynicism extant in 2011 in 2007’.

Like

John Goodwillie - May 30, 2014

I’d love to hear more about the campaign of purifying the Green Party which took place in the 3 weeks between the election and the formation of the government. Even one scrap of evidence.

Like

30. makedoanmend - May 30, 2014

Plenty has been changed in the name of reform. It just seems the changes always, given that they are difficult and made by responsible politicians, hurt the working people.

You are the one framing the discussion as implicitly accepting the present system, capitalism, as the only way to measure what can be done. We are given a choice – unspecified reforms or complete unspecified change. For some reason you seem to favour unspecified reform.

There are plenty of other systems and cultural modes by which one can measure change or, heaven forfend, we might just imagine new ways of operating that don’t require us to buy the tenets of capitalism as the starting point of all economic-cultural discussion.

Like

31. fergal - May 30, 2014

Mark- agree with most of your points above. Not dreaming of “three capitalist parties forming a left coalition”, but of a credible coalition including the further left,not a dream by any stretch of the imagination, that forces ff and fg to join together. There is no cavalry and there won’t be.
If the country wouldn’t go left in the hungry 20s, wouldn’t go left in the miserable 50s, it won’t go left in the 21st century. There won’t be a last fight to be faced.
That is not for one moment to take away form the dedication or hard work of the socialist party or others.
That is why those of us on the libertarian left place huge emphasis on being and doing on an everyday basis- being active in your union, growing you own vegetables/ fruit, unschooling/home-schooling/free schools, squatting/building your own house(see Walter Segal and his work in Lewisham), avoiding banks using the credit union, using cooperatives-surely the essence of socialism, firms owned and run by workers, swapping clothes, fixing them, upcycling them etc. In other defining the world in your terms and not letting it be defined by capitalism. This may not be revolutionary socialism…but then what is?

Like

Mark P - May 30, 2014

I’m not posing the issue in terms of a “last fight”, Fergal. It’s more like an ever lengthening slog with no end in sight,

The problem with the “credible coalition” idea is that if the left go into government with capitalist parties it will be on the basis of administering capitalism within the bounds of the neoliberal orthodoxy subscribed to be those parties. And that is just as true of, say, the modern Labour Party as it is of a Fine Gael. The left will destroy itself, and destroy the small, fragile outpost of working class political independence it represents, for the privilege of acting as a mudguard for business as usual. It’s proposed as a shortcut away from our own marginality, but it’s a shortcut to oblivion. We might get the equivalent of a ban on stag hunting out of it along the way.

If there was an actual reformist social democratic party in this country, a Die Linke at the more moderate end or a SYRIZA at the more radical, all kinds of different factors would be in play and the Marxist left would either be inside it or looking to coalesce with it. But there isn’t, and our own very slightly left of Fine Gael motley crew of parties can’t be wished into that role.

Like


Leave a comment